Not long ago, I came across a public notice from the Ministry of Economic Development in the newspaper. It concerned a sole proprietorship applying for an A-category hospitality license to open a coffeehouse-restaurant. The request included a later closing time, permission for background music, and — remarkably — permission to employ female service staff.
That last request caught my legal attention. Why, in 2025, does anyone still need official permission to hire women as servers? Gender discrimination was supposedly abolished long ago. Or... is that not entirely the case?
We know from countless studies that women still earn less than men for the same work. The gender pay gap persists globally. But needing formal government approval to hire female waitstaff? That’s a bridge too far.
Frankly, it feels like a throwback to an era of moral panic — as if the government needs to vet whether the “ladies in question” might be engaging in more than just table service. You’d almost think officials are still haunted by the ghost of Campo Alegre and the fear of "companionship" services disguised as hospitality.
The Law Behind the Bias
This outdated requirement is grounded in Article 53 of the Licensing Ordinance (Vergunningslandsverordening) of 1963, most recently consolidated in 2024. It explicitly states that written permission is required to employ women or anyone under 18 as waitstaff, regardless of the type of license.
In 2018, the Council of Advice of Curaçao (RvA) reviewed this law in response to a parliamentary proposal to scrap Article 53, citing its discriminatory nature. The Council confirmed that discrimination based on gender violates both the Constitution of Curaçao and international treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
The Council did acknowledge that discrimination is not always illegal — it can be justified in exceptional cases if there is a compelling reason. But here, such a justification is sorely lacking. The law vaguely refers to preventing “undesirable practices,” without ever defining what those are. That’s not good enough.
Moreover, the world has changed drastically since 1963. In fact, the entire Licensing Ordinance — dating back to 1949 — was originally intended as a temporary experiment to curb alcohol consumption. Today, that context no longer applies.
A Deafening Silence
Despite the Council's opinion and the proposed legislative change, nothing happened. The initiative vanished quietly, and Article 53 remains in force. Formally, women still need written permission to serve drinks in a bar or coffeehouse.
From a legal perspective, this requirement is indefensible. In light of higher anti-discrimination laws, no hospitality business should have to seek separate approval to employ women. A judge would almost certainly strike this rule down if challenged.
Time for a Legal Clean-Up
It’s long overdue to scrap this relic of a regulation — and while we’re at it, to give a much-needed overhaul to Curaçao’s broader legislative framework. Consider the 1926 Ordinance for the protection of animals deemed “useful for agriculture” or the 1883 Quarantine Ordinance — yes, 1883. The Council of Advice has repeatedly stated that these laws need to be modernized or merged into a single up-to-date public health regulation.
And those are just two examples. There are dozens of outdated, colonial-era laws in Curaçao that urgently need revision. If we want to move forward as a society that values equality, professionalism, and modern governance, we must stop tolerating the remnants of a legal past that no longer serves us.
Jeff Sybesma is a biologist, lawyer, special judge, and member of the Council of Advice of Curaçao. This opinion piece reflects his personal views.
